|
INSPECTAH DECK posted:They had the exact opposite of a bland scheme today, they had a ton of long passes where the receivers got open and it resulted in a lot of incomplete passes. Manning had a bad day. It's never solely on one guy but whole new game if he can make any throw at all. Why would I have a very high opinion of Fox because we signed Aqib Talib, Demarcus Ware, TJ Ward etc.? Where he fails as a coach is exactly that - turning talent into gains on the football field. The same applies to Del Rio. You give them all these great players, and they can't do anything with them. Fox is great at developing players. He's great at rebuilding a football team and a culture, which is what Denver needed at the time. But in terms of in-game adjustments and drawing up a gameplan, he's just not. No, they didn't get outcoached last year in the AFCCG. They played a Patriots team without its biggest playmaker at home. That was the difference. No question that Fox and JDR coached a better game that day than this one - I never said they were buffoons. But they're no longer the right fit for this team. Also, yes, we've won a handful of playoff games with Manning and Fox at the helm. This is hardly surprising considering our aforementioned stacked roster and homefield advantage the past two years. When everything falls into place just so, like playing the decidedly average Chargers in the Divisional round last year, then advancing to play a hobbled New England team at Denver, they win big games. When the chips are stacked against them, they lose. e: In the first half, receivers did get open downfield and Manning missed them. That was a refreshing change of pace for the offense, but aside from that little wrinkle, what else did you see out of them? And the defense?
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
Yaws posted:Flacco is not a rad QB but fair enough on your other points Joe's slightly above average most of the team and will have a pantsshitting meltdown once or twice a year. He's streaky but when he's on his upstreak he's a pretty badass QB. He won't put up shitloads of yards on a season but there are plenty of teams in the AFC who got past a decent Ravens defense but fell victim to Joe turning it on out of nowhere. He's not as good as like Rivers or Romo but if you're FO isn't retarded you can succeed without a perennial all-pro under center if the dude has the ability to carry a game if another phase of the team is in trouble. 2013 was a lovely year for Joe and the Ravens had no running threat whatsoever, and only 1 receiver that teams had to worry about but could easily scheme against. The Ravens were still win-and-in on a week 17 game. Yea the AFC sucked as well but the Ravens don't even win 2 games that year if someone like Bradford or Locker is throwing for you. Yea I'm biased but if an FO gives a poo poo and your coaches know how to gameplan QBs like Joe can go a long way and are worth every overpaid penny just so you don't waste the careers of super awesome players like Todd Heap in their prime. If the dude was on the Ravens 5 years earlier with those dirty rear end defenses poo poo would've been rad basically  my qb
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Grittybeard posted:I was joking but he was a pretty big deal as soon as he saw the field at Stanford, and we were all feeling bad for Carolina when he didn't come out after his RS sophomore season. So if you want a serious question I guess during his redshirt year? They started dating during that redshirt year. I think they were in the same freshman dorm, and a ton of their common friends had to conspire to get them together since they were both super shy. It was apparently adorable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
e: double post
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Remember when everyone was talking about how hosed Brady was by the Patriots no-talent offense and we were getting Lost Season 2.0, while Peyton was living the dream? Good times. : 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Remember when everyone was talking about how hosed Brady was by the Patriots no-talent offense and we were getting Lost Season 2.0, while Peyton was living the dream? I'm so salty that there are guys so loving good that people think something is extremely wrong if they have just an average game while the team around them collapses.  "oh poo poo the pats ended up 12-4...is Brady done?!?!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Perpetual Ascent posted:Why would I have a very high opinion of Fox because we signed Aqib Talib, Demarcus Ware, TJ Ward etc.? Where he fails as a coach is exactly that - turning talent into gains on the football field. The same applies to Del Rio. You give them all these great players, and they can't do anything with them. Perpetual Ascent posted:No, they didn't get outcoached last year in the AFCCG. They played a Patriots team without its biggest playmaker at home. That was the difference. No question that Fox and JDR coached a better game that day than this one - I never said they were buffoons. But they're no longer the right fit for this team. Perpetual Ascent posted:Also, yes, we've won a handful of playoff games with Manning and Fox at the helm. This is hardly surprising considering our aforementioned stacked roster and homefield advantage the past two years. When everything falls into place just so, like playing the decidedly average Chargers in the Divisional round last year, then advancing to play a hobbled New England team at Denver, they win big games. When the chips are stacked against them, they lose. Perpetual Ascent posted:e: In the first half, receivers did get open downfield and Manning missed them. That was a refreshing change of pace for the offense, but aside from that little wrinkle, what else did you see out of them? And the defense?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
Sour Diesel posted:I'm so salty that there are guys so loving good that people think something is extremely wrong if they have just an average game while the team around them collapses. The "is Brady done" talk only happened during the MNF game when he and the team both completely collapsed. Which to be fair, it's not often you see Brady completely embarrassed on primetime to the point Garoppolo's put in
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Before I respond to this post, I feel the need to clarify I'm not salt-posting, just looking for some healthy conversation about the game.INSPECTAH DECK posted:Well that he developed a lot of great players, and that's a large part of why the Broncos are stacked. And of course lots of teams sign guys to big money but it doesn't work out. Fox/JDR should be given credit for doing that. I mean Denver's defense was brutal worst in the league before Fox arrived, now they're among the best in the league, and the offense only suffered with Peyton's downturn (and they still won 12 games), that should be worth a lot of credit no matter how you want to wave that off. John Fox can develop players, did develop players, and they are now well-developed players. I know that. That's why I said he was a great hire at the time, he did exactly what he needed to. He retooled this team into a contender. In sports, it's not uncommon for a coach who builds a team over the course of a few years and gets them close to or to contender status to be fired. You hear it all the time, they needed a new coach to "get over the hump." I definitely believe Fox did his job and I give him all the credit in the world for that. But as we've seen, being able to develop players simply isn't enough. Going to the playoffs for 4 straight years is great. Going to the Super Bowl was great. Some teams hardly even sniff those things. That can't keep a team that does from making hard decisions, though. An anecdote - 1. Leading up to the Super Bowl last year, Fox held practices without any simulated noise. First of all, what kind of a retard makes this decision? Against Seattle, whose fans are the loudest in the league, in the Super Bowl, and you don't practice with simulated noise? And second of all, how'd that turn out? A safety on the first snap of the game, and the offense looked completely confused out there the rest of the way because they couldn't deal with the noise. quote:The Patriots had a really great offense even without Gronk, and the defense which looked decent for most of the season got abused. They played at home because they had a dominant 13 win season. I don't see any sane reason why they're a worse fit now than before. Really great offense? Are you serious? Amendola has played great no doubt, and Edelman continues to amaze, but NE's offense without Gronk is a dumpster fire, especially when you take into consideration the looks those players see because of the defense's required focus on Gronk. The Patriots simply had nothing to work with last year, at least in terms of the rest of the playoff teams. Yes, they were still good, they made it to the AFCCG after all. But the better team won - talent prevailed. Denver didn't beat NE because Fox outcoached Belichick, that's for drat sure. quote:They don't win big games, except when they do, but those don't count? I don't think the Ravens loss or the loss today were poor coaching efforts, either, . This just seems like whining that they haven't won a Superbowl yet in a 3 year span. I think I explained why "those don't count", though I don't remember saying they didn't count, nor do I remember saying that Denver never wins big games. Of course they do. The Ravens loss was not entirely a result of poor coaching, though poor coaching factors into most every loss for both teams so it was still a factor. Rahim Moore's gently caress up was clearly the defining reason that game. Today's game was different. The team played like dogshit in comparison to the Ravens game, which as you remember was high-scoring and fun and fabulous. Yeah, a couple receivers had their defenders beat in the first half for big gains, maybe even TDs, but what about all the other snaps on offense? They couldn't get separation, couldn't hold onto the ball, and the offense was entirely one-dimensional as it always has been. Involving the run isn't anything new for Denver - Moreno carried as much of the load if not more than CJ did the last year he was here. Basically, the only thing that changed in Denver after the Super Bowl loss were the names on the back of the jerseys. quote:I don't know what you think other teams do, but outside of running a trick play once in a while I don't know what you're expecting. They called a lot of good plays, they would've resulted in big gains/touchdowns if Manning could make the throw, he couldn't, now all they had left was an ok-ish running game and a lot of short passes that were getting camped on, which is hard to win with. They called the same exact plays they always called. Even the potential big plays downfield were just plays that have been in the playbook since time immemorial but instead of taking the underneath throw on them, Manning went deep. Take a look at this tweet - david r tarver @dave_tarver 20 minutes ago @OU_CoachStoops - Vontae Davis said they followed Seattle's blueprint in taking Denver's receivers out the game Basically, Indianapolis knew exactly how to beat the Broncos going in, and the Broncos were completely unprepared for the idea that the opposing team might scheme for them the same way the Seahawks have in the past, both games in which the Seahawks won handily. And yes, I watched the rematch in the regular season - without absurd Peyton Manning heroics, it would've been a beatdown all the same. That right there should tell you all you need to know about the coaching staff. Also, think back to that Super Bowl last year. After the game, multiple Seahawks players came out and basically said they knew everything Denver was going to do in the game. They had studied and deciphered the playcalls, the signals. When your team can only play one type of game, they aren't going to last long in the postseason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Perpetual Ascent posted:John Fox can develop players, did develop players, and they are now well-developed players. I know that. That's why I said he was a great hire at the time, he did exactly what he needed to. He retooled this team into a contender. Perpetual Ascent posted:Really great offense? Are you serious? Amendola has played great no doubt, and Edelman continues to amaze, but NE's offense without Gronk is a dumpster fire, especially when you take into consideration the looks those players see because of the defense's required focus on Gronk. The Patriots simply had nothing to work with last year, at least in terms of the rest of the playoff teams. Yes, they were still good, they made it to the AFCCG after all. But the better team won - talent prevailed. Denver didn't beat NE because Fox outcoached Belichick, that's for drat sure. Perpetual Ascent posted:I think I explained why "those don't count", though I don't remember saying they didn't count, nor do I remember saying that Denver never wins big games. Of course they do. The Ravens loss was not entirely a result of poor coaching, though poor coaching factors into most every loss for both teams so it was still a factor. Rahim Moore's gently caress up was clearly the defining reason that game. Perpetual Ascent posted:Take a look at this tweet -
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
INSPECTAH DECK posted:I don't think the job of developing players ever stops and this is doubly true in the NFL where most players are on very short term contracts. The Broncos need more Chris Harris type success stories, because along with having an elite QB, getting those constant is the best way to field a contending team. If you're paying fair money for all your good players than you are not going to win the Superbowl, and the idea that the job of developing players is done seems to run counter to that. Change coaches and my guess is that defense will drop like a stone and the offense will continue to degrade unless Manning's arm is rejuvenated. John Fox was hired to do just what you said, but the plans changed when we signed Peyton Manning. A "win now" mentality and all that. Developing players isn't done, and I never said it was, but we're discussing the right fit for this team, currently I imagine, and this team no longer needs development to win games. At least, the primary strength of a contender's coach shouldn't be that he develops players. That's the type of person you hire to turn around your organization. Fox is great at that, but I definitely don't think we lost this game because we don't have enough homegrown talent like Chris Harris. quote:Varied playcalling is really about attacking different parts of the field in different ways and once Manning could not make those throws is when they became predictable. I don't think that when Denver's offense was running smooth, as it was for 2.5 years of the Manning era, that there's any concern for variety. They have receivers for every route under the sun, they mix the run in well, Manning's obvious strength with the audible makes it dangerous to guess what they're doing, and really for the most part Manning's arm has held up pretty well. And that kind of goes into another point I should've made earlier; the playcaller for Denver is not Fox, and it's not really Gates either, it's Manning. So if you have an issue with the play calls, shouldn't a lot of that be with the guy who gets final say? Also, unlike the Superbowl, I don't think Manning was at all under siege from the pass rush, he definitely had time to set up throws and for routes to develop. Plus the running game was fine today. Denver's offense ran "smooth" for all of one season last year, and the records show it. Any time a player gets hobbled, the whole loving offense burns down. If it's not DT's foot, it's JT's ankle. And when the defense lost Brandon Marshall during the regular season, the cracks started to show there too. Our offense has been effective since Manning's arrival, but running smooth? Hard to say. I'm getting the feeling you think winning games equates to running smooth, so I can see why you'd think that. Denver's receivers surely can run every route under the sun, but do they? If you don't watch many Broncos games, you should start, man, because the routes the Denver receivers run are nothing but standard and ordinary. And "they mix the run in well?" Like, you can't seriously believe that if you've ever watched more than a few Broncos games. Denver is NOT GOOD at mixing the run in, in fact, they're so bad at it they had to make a concentrated effort to be better at it in the last third of the season. Denver definitely ran a few really stupid runs today when they had the pass working, so I don't know how you can say that. I think "Gates" as you put it does call the plays. Since Peyton came to Denver, he's relinquished more and more control to his OC. He's been all about working with his coaches and all that jazz since he's gotten here, and hasn't dictated any changes to the coaching staff or offense as far as I'm aware of. He has authority at the line and can check out of and into plays, yeah, but I'm almost positive that the calls do come from Gase on the sideline. And yeah, some of the responsibility is put on Manning when he checks into a bad run or whatever. Manning wasn't pressured nearly as much as in the Super Bowl, but he's been pressured a LOT more this season than last, and in today's game, he still didn't have a lot of time to throw. At times he did, he wasn't sacked a whole lot or beat up, but the fumble was completely on the O-line, and while Manning threw more than a few balls that I'm sure he'd like to have back, his receivers weren't getting a lick of separation. quote:That tweet is meaningless. It's not like teams didn't try the Seahawks strategy early in this season, or that it's a particularly novel strategy to begin with. And in the Colts case did in fact get beat on a lot of deep routes, but yeah, when you can't actually connect on those when they're wide open any sensible defense is going to take note. Every DB's going to look like Richard Sherman if you can't go down the field and all that. Your point about the rematch this year does not make much sense. The Seahawks did not win handily, and the big difference between that game and the Superbowl was that Peyton played far better which tells you... what, exactly? It's not meaningless, man. It's a perfect example of how this team can't make adjustments. It's been almost a year and they haven't made any changes save for the names on the back of the jerseys. The Colts were definitely not beat on a "lot" of deep routes, though I feel like I have to keep stating, yes, Manning missed the few deep throws he took. Yet, Fox is the one who states after the game that he was unhappy with how often we went deep. You don't think that might have something to do with why they didn't look back downfield in the second half? The Seahawks did win handily, and the big difference between that game and the Super Bowl was that Peyton played far better for the last like, 5 minutes. I keep harping on this, but like, you watched the game, correct? Of course a Super Bowl that ends with a 35-point differential is an outlier, but nobody really thinks Denver had a chance in that game, and that didn't change when Denver played them in the regular season. Bringing the game within a few points in the final seconds after spending the first 50 minutes sucking it up isn't "playing far better" in my opinion. Perpetual Ascent fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Jan 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:51 |
|
|
I think it's a credit to Denver's coaching staff that they were able to get as far as they did this season after Manning hit the wall. They remodeled the offense midseason to be less reliant on the passing game and developed CJ Anderson, an undrafted free agent, into one of the more successful RB of this season. I think you can see this game as a microcosm of the season. On the first drive Manning's arm was "fresh" again and he drove for an easy TD. Just like the first few games of the season. But then he hit the wall again and it was over.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2015 11:28
|
|